Slashdot Mirror


North Korea Declares a State of War

paysonwelch writes "North Korea has declared a state of war against South Korea, stating that neither peace nor war has ended. Quoting the news release via Reuters: '1. From this moment, the north-south relations will be put at the state of war and all the issues arousing between the north and the south will be dealt with according to the wartime regulations.' The DPRK goes on to say that this will be a 'blitz' war and that they will regain control of the south, and destroy U.S. bases in the process." Great line from the declaration: "[The U.S.] should clearly know that in the era of Marshal Kim Jong Un, the greatest-ever commander, all things are different from what they used to be in the past." A senior U.S. official called this statement "pot-banging and chest-thumping." The official said, "North Korea is in a mindset of war, but North Korea is not going to war."

7 of 628 comments (clear)

  1. Didn't they get the memo? by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Korean "war" never ended. It has been ongoing since 1950

    1. Re:Didn't they get the memo? by data2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I realize reading TFA is frowned upon, so just for you:

      "The state of neither peace nor war has ended on the Korean Peninsula."

  2. Re:Ut oh. by firex726 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well China has recently voted in favor of sanctions against NK; previously they did not.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-21710919

  3. Re:Ut oh. by roc97007 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah, I think that's what's going to be different this time. There are signs that China is getting tired of North Korea's crap.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  4. Re:Nothing New by gtall · · Score: 5, Informative

    N. Korea attacked first. History is always an interesting read.

  5. Re:This little guy by Subm · · Score: 5, Informative

    This series of posts describes North Korean strategy at a high level -- http://joshuaspodek.com/north-korea-strategy-preview

  6. Re:Nothing New by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Informative

    They are pretty useless in modern theatre, which is why no one really objected to their destruction. They were originally meant as tactical weapons, as they have very low range, to take out massed tank forces. They became utterly inefficient as armour on tanks became thick enough to effectively prevent terminal effect of neutron bombardment around 70s-80s.

    They could still be used against uncovered enemy, but their low range makes them largely unfeasible for this purpose. If you're willing to use nuclear weapons, you're much better off with conventional nuclear warheads that produce the destructive effect through combination of high temperature and pressure shockwave.